ALL USAID posts combined

False. What you are seeing is MAYO acknowledging that HCQ was, for a limited time, approved for COVID treatment for a limited time by the FDA. But upon further study, this emergency approval was rescinded because HCQ proved ineffective against COVID. And if you go to MAYO now, they will tell you as such.

Claims that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine can treat COVID-19 are false. These medicines are still useful for treating other illness. But only medicines approved or authorized by the FDA to treat COVID-19 are useful for that illness.

Ivermectin treats or prevents parasites in animals and in humans, not viruses. Taking large doses of this drug can cause serious harm.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are malaria medicines. Early in the pandemic, the FDA authorized these medicines for emergency use. But the FDA later withdrew that authorization. Clinical information showed that the medicines weren't effective for treating COVID-19. They also can cause serious heart problems.​

 

Your citation doesn't say that to kill the COVID virus hydroxychloroquine has to be used in combination with zinc. Sad.

When was your citation written? Don't see a date.

 

PubMed
The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials
Xudong Han et al. J Thorac Dis. 2024

Conclusions: Results of this meta-analysis indicated significant impact of HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 infection with higher risk of adverse events. These findings must be considered with caution, and further research is necessary to delineate the specific circumstances where HCQ may be effective for COVID-19 prevention

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

 

A Meta Study is a study that combines all previous studies on the subject and uses that data to try and make conclusions. The issue with Meta studies is earlier studies with lower level of test subjects, and or early studies with a later discovered variable often skew results. The best kind of study is double blind with a large number of subjects.

This article should put to rest HCQ and COVID. Early studies in third world areas with unclean drinking water showed promise with treating COVID with HCQ. For example, areas in India. But further, double blind studies have shown the early success with drugs like Ivermectin or HCQ wasn't the drug fighting COVID. But the drug doing what it was designed to do, which in the case of Ivermectin, fight off nematode infections, and for HCQ, fight malaria. And this helped those in third-world areas fight off COVID, because their bodies weren't also fighting the other infection at the same time.

But studies in areas where diseases like malaria and nematode infection is really small, which are areas with clean drinking water, both HCQ and ivermectin proved ineffective in fighting COVID.

In conclusion, PEP with HCQ is not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic household direct contact of the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases.​

 

Did your paper test hydroxychloroquine with zinc or just hudrocychloroquine? You have to use HCQ with zinc.

 

Honestly, I don't know. There is no definitive study of HCQ plus zinc. Some studies show no increase in efficacy. Others show HCQ plus zinc to be effective against COVID. Usually when multiple studies have widely different outcomes, there is a variable that the studies don't account for but when scientists do account for it, the puzzle pieces come together.

For example, first world with clean drinking water versus third world with poor water quality is a variable. So is COVID variant. Further research on HCQ plus zinc is required, and maybe there will be something there. My guess is there won't be, but I wouldn't rule it out.

 

Another study.
Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials - PMC
Results

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96).

Conclusion
Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.